Question: Should botting & use of macros be allowed?

[GeorgeSkywalker]

I realise this can be a contentious issue so to minimise that please try to only discuss pros and cons of botting/macros?

As the discussion progresses I'll update the table below with pros and cons we identify.

Then eventually from this table of pros and cons perhaps we can formulate plans to negate or minimise the cons such that we only have positives. If such a situation is achieved then theoretically everyone would win. I'll make a separate thread which discusses potential solutions for the cons we identify.

Some of the results of this approaching I predict may be surprising! For instance if botting is allowed then an argument may be markup from loot may plummet. This may not necessarily happen but I'm jumping the gun! We'll discuss that if and when it arises let's follow the process and see where it leads us...

Table of pros & cons of botting/macroing
Pros	Cons (or negative issues)
Allowing botting would be fairer	massive unfairness in having rules which are not enforced, so we should move out of this current situation for sure.
MA does not really have an incentive to reduce macro usage as their bottom line comes from absorbing ped from cycling. If MA allows botting/macroing then they would increase their profits. Hence it is imperative for MA to actually do a rule change and allow botting/macroing. Also leads to more game development as MA would have more income.	MA official line is they do not condone the use of Macros or any form of automated gameplay. However, use of macros and bots is already prevalent amongst the player base.
If it is allowed, it needs to be stated that way, so everyone have same and fair chances.	MU squeezed towards zero
If allowed could be potential marketing opportunities for the game	the game itself is structured to encourage some form of automation.
If allowed easier to develop the game as MA would not be hindered in trying to detect and deal with botters. Could concentrate their efforts on actual game development.	If botting is not allowed then it needs to be strictly enforced. However, it is not easy to detect even more so prove 100% that they are botting.
Opportunities for MA to develop automated play utilities and tools that could lead more profitability	MA cannot reveal how they go about detecting botting or admit defeat.
Better quality of life for players as they can participate in the game into auto mode and be doing something else in real life	Anyone who uses automated play will skill up faster as their avatar could be playing when they are doing something else. Also they can be playing 24/7. This would be the case for both scenarios if allowed and not allowed.
ethically the right thing to do	Automated play in the current situation where it is not officially allowed can lead to hinderances in social interaction. Social interaction is a big component in massively mutiplayer games.
current situation is unsustainable	It's possible if a player doesn't know what they are doing could "loose" peds faster
healthier for players both physically and mentally	could auto mode players be exploited by other players?
healthier for MA	In current situation MA may not be able to prove someone is botting. This could explain their reluctance to take action. Court cases can be lengthy and very costly.
If MA develop some simple new features could increase social interaction. It's possible social interaction may increase without them as majority of EU players are mature.	MA cannot fully condone automated play for public perception reasons? (some may perceive as negative and others as positive)
If MA do it right their reputation would increase among the player base	Could players quit seeing others botting? (this seems non sensical to me perhaps people mean this if botting is not allowed but see it going on will make them quit)
If botting is allowed everyone has the opportunity to bot 24/7 and hence access the same loot opportunities. (Note there could be in game changes implemented that address this and arguably promote a more natural playstyle)	The issue of new players not being able to catch up to 24/7 botters. This is true when botting is not allowed and also true when botting is allowed. The ones who started botting 24/7 first are likely to always stay ahead.
	If botting is not allowed 24/7 botters can negatively impact legit players loot.
	if botting is not allowed legit players cannot compete with the botters hence will reduce their gameplay or quit as it doesn't make sense for them to play or even try to compete.
	if botting is not allowed and effectively enforced it may not stop the 24/7 botters they will simply revert to using multiple people taking turns to play on their account hence able to play 24/7 thereby rendering the enforcement futile.
	If nothing is done about botting it will have a negative impact on the game, the players and MA as well.
	Easy for MA to generate revenue by making AFK instance. The long term problem of this is MA will end up with a product that is bland, will not retain many new players, and they will slowly lose their active recreational players.

Solutions to the cons identified above can be discussed in this thread (or general solutions to this issue):
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...oblems-associated-with-botting-macros.299252/

Edit:
Please try to stay on topic and only list pros and cons of botting (by botting I mean automated play, macros and use of bots).
If you could label your response with the headings pros and/or cons that would be very much appreciated. Thanks you.

 

[castanhas]

this has been discussed way to many times.
make it legal, but make it less profitable than actualy playing.
there could be a pet, that "plays" for you, but with high nutrio cost, all the other forms of boting , using out of the game software would make u temp banned.

 

[jetsina]

First of all, there is a massive unfairness in having rules which are not enforced, so we should move out of this current situation for sure.
On the topic of which direction to go in, allowing or actively banning:
there is a certain unfairness in allowing third-party features to boost results. Features should be in-game only in my opinion, but may need to be unlocked as part of pathways open to all, but not necessarily right from the start of playing.
allowing afk play would further affect balancing within EU I think. It's not so much a yes or no for me as a question of whether done well or not. There I have quite low confidence in MA as things stand unfortunately...
Edit: overall I agree with the above: "make it legal, but make it less profitable than actualy playing." (the word profitable is maybe problematic. I mean it in the sense of beneficial...)

 

[Jhereg]

The issue is that, even though MA/My has come out to say they do not 'condone the use of Macros or any form of automated gameplay' (That is their official line), that the use of macros, and to a lesser extent, actual bots, is prevalent amongst the player base. So any consequences due to macroing/botting you are talking about is already occurring inside EU and its economy (MU squeezed towards zero is the main one).

At this point, MA needs to be the one to actually fix the issue. The issue is systemic, as in the game itself is structured to encourage some form of automation.

So MA needs to either:
1) Allow macroing/botting (rule change)
2) Force non-automated interaction with the game and actually enforce their no macro/bot rules, while including quality of life improvements (no incessant f pressing to grind and sitting in front of keyboard for 24/7)
3) Perhaps there is a way for them to limit how much a player can do activities that are very macro-able or bottable.

But I just want to emphasize, the effect of automation is already in the game. Macroing and botting is very common. But also, MA does not really have an incentive to reduce macro usage as their bottom line comes from absorbing ped from cycling.

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

there is a certain unfairness in allowing third-party features to boost results.

Could you elaborate on this please. What exactly is the unfairness?

 

[LizeLotte]

Easy answer

NO NO and NO
All this auto shit destroys the game

 

[Mcshakerz]

Feel like it should or not doesn't matter. They had it to where the F button was an activation and they fixed it. They clearly dont care.

 

[San]

One problem is that every time this complaint comes up, everybody adding their 2 cents seems to believe it must be easy to detect and all it took was for the developer to decide to do it. This is not the case, except maybe for the most naive botting techniques. You can do some profiling and make a judgement what is plausible for a human being, certainly not 24/7 clicking but you inevitably have a large grey zone where you are hard pressed to decide. With the newest tools, even responses to communication approaches can be fabricated.

To avoid making matters worse than they are, the company will neither let the public know which methods they do use and to what extent, nor will they admit to defeat. The umpteenth thread cannot change that. As others have noted, the game itself creates the incentives for automation. Opportunity attracts opportunists, law of nature.

 

[jetsina]

- there is a certain unfairness in allowing third-party features to boost results.
- Could you elaborate on this please. What exactly is the unfairness?
Sure. Unfairness stems from a technical, wealth, societal (knowledge?) or other ability to do what others cannot within the RCE format. I believe that as much as possible, any advantages should come from player skills within a game. The game features themselves should act as a lock-in of sorts. However, I admit that at some point, having expensive gaming equipment can also translate into what looks like a skills advantage in many areas of computer gaming. But I draw the line at [edit: external] software inputs that can bring advantages for either a player at the keyboard, or afk by using botting practices. This is because afk activity in itself contributes to skilling, for example, which is a major part of player progression.

I also get that there are such things as secrets found by someone in game (or potentially leaked) and only spread very carefully, but it is tricky to say at what point game design to make use of this is also unfair. We have seen more and more areas cut off from normal access (mainly instances) in which secret knowledge is even less likely to leak out fast, but most know that instances can hide botters, and even be created with them apparently "in mind".

I agree with San that clear detection is not always easy, and it requires resources and effort to do so, plus that advances on the bot side keep on coming. In some areas botting seems to have become a major turnover factor as well, so I can understand the temptation to accept automated play.
If accepted, then the rules should reflect that then, however, not quietly tolerated.
I think it is still fairly easy to put in anti-bot measures that do not lower enjoyment for human players, but again it would require an amount of effort that MA is not putting in there either I believe.
Edit: another suggestion made is that bot or bot-like play should be less rewarding/"profitable". That would also be fine in an EU that allows 'stuff' to go on, but doesn't want to favour it.

 

[MrMayhem]

It can be both but

A. If it is allowed, it needs to be stated that way, so everyone have same and fair chances.
B. If it is not, detection and ruling should be strictly enforced, again to have fair chances for everyone to compete.

Personaly would prefer option B, as per markups going to hell

 

[The Great Adventurer]

MindArk will implement in-game macros with UE5. If you've ever played Star Wars Galaxies the system will be comparable to that.

Stop having this discussion. It's what pays the bills.

 

[Art Jennifer]

Firstly it is black and white… use of anything to automate gameplay is not allowed..

MindArk does not condone nor allow for automation of gameplay via macros or other software.


Positive: More cycle more money more game development. How do you think UE5 is paid for?

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

- there is a certain unfairness in allowing third-party features to boost results.
- Could you elaborate on this please. What exactly is the unfairness?
Sure. Unfairness stems from a technical, wealth, societal (knowledge?) or other ability to do what others cannot within the RCE format.

Still not certain where you are going with that. If botting is allowed and stated as such. Then everyone would have the same opportunities to use third party tools. Furthermore open discussion of what tools are available and how to use etc would lead to recommendations and tutorials etc. Which would help to even the playing field.

Also what I think your referring to with the unfairness it's built into an RCE and difficult to eradicate. Unfairness probably the wrong word to use. If that was an aim it could be done though if the game rules and what is referred to today as Game Knowledge is explicitly stated by MA i.e. having a situation similar to other games e.g. chess. Where all the rules are openly known by both players and what separates players isn't any hidden knowledge but their ability to strategise better.

Also if botting is allowed then MA could have tools within the game that aid that. These would be available to everyone although in an RCE they may have different cost implications.

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

Cons:
- Anyone who uses automated play will skill up faster as their avatar could be playing when they are doing something else. Also they can be playing 24/7. This would be the case for both scenarios if allowed and not allowed.

- Automated play in the current situation where it is not officially allowed can lead to hinderances in social interaction. Social interaction is a big component in massively mutiplayer games.

Pros
- If allowed could be potential marketing opportunities for the game
- If allowed easier to develop the game as MA would not be hindered in trying to detect and deal with botters. Could concentrate their efforts on actual game development.
- Opportunities for MA to develop automated play utilities and tools that could lead more profitability
- Better quality of life for players as they can participate in the game into auto mode and be doing something else in real life

 

[jetsina]

George: there's a difference between teaching someone a secret and being able to give someone a 3rd-party tool that does something specific. Even if allowed, I think there would be secrecy about add-ons for all sorts of things that I would dislike, but I accept it's a difficult discussion and place of responsibility for MA.
I also accept that my favouring the allowance of alts, or having permission for a small clan of 5 bottable alts or whatever, would also allow for much more variations in 'agency' for individual players, depending on their access to computing power. There are pros and cons, as you rightly suggest in the overall idea of your thread.

One main point others have already mentioned here and generally is that MA should please be consistent. Do not officially disallow that which you are not prepared to police. At least try to find ways ...
I also get the impression over development after development that MA are intentionally adding material to make botting easier, not harder. Some stuff appears even specifically designed to encourage a 'pay (mu) to cheat' pathway, that even feeds cheaters to profit from mus on stuff that itself furthers cheating. A big exception may be the RDI line of requiring teams to be very much alive when in action, but plenty of development in recent years has not been like that I think. I'm sure people can think for themselves of the sort of additions I mean, without my saying outright.

I do, of course, mean cheating as the rules currently stand. MA can go in either direction, as others have stated, just should not stay still and even enhance the problem.

 

[Gopher]

George: there's a difference between teaching someone a secret and being able to give someone a 3rd-party tool that does something specific. Even if allowed, I think there would be secrecy about add-ons for all sorts of things that I would dislike, but I accept it's a difficult discussion and place of responsibility for MA.
I also accept that my favouring the allowance of alts, or having permission for a small clan of 5 bottable alts or whatever, would also allow for much more variations in 'agency' for individual players, depending on their access to computing power. There are pros and cons, as you rightly suggest in the overall idea of your thread.

One main point others have already mentioned here and generally is that MA should please be consistent. Do not officially disallow that which you are not prepared to police. At least try to find ways ...
I also get the impression over development after development that MA are intentionally adding material to make botting easier, not harder. Some stuff appears even specifically designed to encourage a 'pay (mu) to cheat' pathway, that even feeds cheaters to profit from mus on stuff that itself furthers cheating. A big exception may be the RDI line of requiring teams to be very much alive when in action, but plenty of development in recent years has not been like that I think. I'm sure people can think for themselves of the sort of additions I mean, without my saying outright.

I do, of course, mean cheating as the rules currently stand. MA can go in either direction, as others have stated, just should not stay still and even enhance the problem.

They should just add way more content to the game (FOR ALL LEVELS) that requires you to be active to gain the rewards for that activity. The botters can go do their zero mu shit while MA can make everything non-bottable have the MU.

 

[GermanMan]

Both are not allowed and anyone caught should expect consequences.

 

[Thorns Rose]

Both are not allowed and anyone caught should expect consequences.

This is the issue: The Entropia Universe TOS/ EULA has been modified to where it is ok to use these programs or should I say has been " Omitted" from the TOS, that speaks volumes to me and what legalities are in place .

( A streamer alerted me to this and I have to say was quite the surprise.)

If it is specified please post and make it a obvious rule so we are not all beating our heads or spending money.

I hate botters personally and especially ones who then post their achievements from it.

 

[MrBabul]

Do we rly need 28th toppic about macro? Ma dont give a single fuck about macro users since it generates more income for them. End of story

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

pro
- ethically the right thing to do
- current situation is unsustainable
- healthier for players both physically and mentally
- healthier for MA
- If MA develop some simple new features could increase social interaction. It's possible social interaction may increase without them as majority of EU players are mature.
- If MA do it right their reputation would increase among the player base

con
- It's possible if a player doesn't know what they are doing could "loose" peds faster
- could auto mode players be exploited by other players?

One problem is that every time this complaint comes up, everybody adding their 2 cents seems to believe it must be easy to detect and all it took was for the developer to decide to do it. This is not the case, except maybe for the most naive botting techniques. You can do some profiling and make a judgement what is plausible for a human being, certainly not 24/7 clicking but you inevitably have a large grey zone where you are hard pressed to decide. With the newest tools, even responses to communication approaches can be fabricated.

It's actually worse than that as MA may not be able to prove someone is botting. This could explain their reluctance to take action. Court cases can be lengthy and very costly. The outcome of court cases can be a bit of pot luck as well e.g. even if MA were confident they had proof of someone botting in an actual court case what if a lawyer managed to get that evidence disregarded using their legal knowledge and legal games?

To avoid making matters worse than they are, the company will neither let the public know which methods they do use and to what extent, nor will they admit to defeat. The umpteenth thread cannot change that. As others have noted, the game itself creates the incentives for automation. Opportunity attracts opportunists, law of nature.

It's not about changing that. Think in terms of a bigger scale. In my opening post I have tried to steer this towards looking at pros and cons of botting only. Then formulate solutions around the cons. In the end this approach not only helps us to understand the different issues involved but navigate towards a viable solution. Most people are reasonable including MA. If we can come up with a viable solution and one that is financially beneficial for MA then it's only natural for MA to embrace that opportunity.

Do we rly need 28th toppic about macro? Ma dont give a single fuck about macro users since it generates more income for them. End of story

I'm not sure if you've actually read the thread and what it aims to achieve. In short if a solution can be found that is beneficial for everyone including MA and generates even more money for MA then everyone wins.

In the current situation where botting goes on but not allowed doesn't maximise income for MA. If for example botting was allowed then even more people could make use of it hence generate even more money for MA.

 

[MrBabul]

I'm not sure if you've actually read the thread and what it aims to achieve. In short if a solution can be found that is beneficial for everyone including MA and generates even more money for MA then everyone wins.

In the current situation where botting goes on but not allowed doesn't maximise income for MA. If for example botting was allowed then even more people could make use of it hence generate even more money for MA.

I did read it and my answer is the same. MA dont care if someone is botting even in crowded spots (vortex spot on cyrene when twen started).
Also it wont change nothing if they officialy say that you can use it since anyone who want to use it already does.
Like i said there was multiple toppics full of suggestions towards MA and all got ignored.
I cant see any pros from having macro in game

 

[Alina]

this has been discussed way to many times.
make it legal, but make it less profitable than actualy playing.
there could be a pet, that "plays" for you, but with high nutrio cost, all the other forms of boting , using out of the game software would make u temp banned.

Thing is there are already advantages of playing vs going afk but trust me people are just lazy.

 

[Mavrik]

This is the issue: The Entropia Universe TOS/ EULA has been modified to where it is ok to use these programs or should I say has been " Omitted" from the TOS, that speaks volumes to me and what legalities are in place .

( A streamer alerted me to this and I have to say was quite the surprise.)

If it is specified please post and make it a obvious rule so we are not all beating our heads or spending money.

I hate botters personally and especially ones who then post their achievements from it.

Rose , Dranie was right what he told you.

 

[ChairmanEdgewise]

https://imgur.com/KxacN8G

 

[MrUnderCover]

Just in solo instances when you dont interfere with anyone else gameplay simple as that

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

Just in solo instances when you dont interfere with anyone else gameplay simple as that

It still interferes with others gameplay.

 

[Killahbee]

Markup would go up, turnover across the board would take a massive hit

 

[Angela Draniie Cloud]

They made it even easier not allowing you to target an unreachable mob. Not an issue for non macro/botters. No longer get stuck at say idk Drill Bots or living vortex or other mobs and have the avatar be dead for an hour +

Rose , Dranie was right what he told you.

 

[jambon]

In its current state - yes. A blind chimp could play this one button slot machine game. All a bot would have to do basically is just hit F.

A hunting bot doesn't affect other players in any meaningful way. The complaint would be no different than someone with a full time job complaining that an unemployed bum has an unfair advantage because they don't have to go to work. Bot or not, your still churning peds.

 

[romi impi]

MA is playing into this.

there's a reason why you need 150k points in redulite now ( and all others too ). 50% more , more people start botting more money for MA.
botting doesnt make you magicly make you profit.